Warren's idea about campaign finance only makes a certain sense in the context of a two-party system, since in a multi-party system with five parties you could give $600,000 to your favorite party and only $100,000 each to the other four, which gives billionaire-supported parties a huge boost over their rivals. But in effect, here in the US, we already have something like Warren's idea in practice. Corporate donors routinely give to both major parties, and both parties are crap. Besides which, if all the campaign money is coming from billionaires, all the parties, to one degree or another, are going to legislate in the interest of the billionaire class--the way they already do. The mere fact of splitting that campaign finance bribery among nominally "opposing" parties does nothing to mitigate the fact that private political contributions are the equivalent of legalized bribery and corruption.
Guys There's a short video that was just released by walk the world called "Is the Bank of England broke and does it matter" I commented: The UK is not on a Gold Standard. Alan Greenspan once said there's nothing to prevent the Federal Government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. That's because the US government creates its own sovereign currency. That also applies to Britain, Australia and many other countries. As Beardsley Ruml once declared "Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete". This means taxes and borrowing don't pay for anything. What does this all mean. There's absolutely nothing to worry about because the UK government can just create as much currency as it needs whenever it needs and can never ever go broke creating its own currency. The British taxpayers won't have to pay any extra whatsoever. Was my comment accurate or not? Is this a topic for a future podcast?
02:36 - Chapter 7 The Deficits That Matter
Warren's idea about campaign finance only makes a certain sense in the context of a two-party system, since in a multi-party system with five parties you could give $600,000 to your favorite party and only $100,000 each to the other four, which gives billionaire-supported parties a huge boost over their rivals. But in effect, here in the US, we already have something like Warren's idea in practice. Corporate donors routinely give to both major parties, and both parties are crap. Besides which, if all the campaign money is coming from billionaires, all the parties, to one degree or another, are going to legislate in the interest of the billionaire class--the way they already do. The mere fact of splitting that campaign finance bribery among nominally "opposing" parties does nothing to mitigate the fact that private political contributions are the equivalent of legalized bribery and corruption.
Guys
There's a short video that was just released by walk the world called "Is the Bank of England broke and does it matter"
I commented:
The UK is not on a Gold Standard.
Alan Greenspan once said there's nothing to prevent the Federal Government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. That's because the US government creates its own sovereign currency. That also applies to Britain, Australia and many other countries.
As Beardsley Ruml once declared
"Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete".
This means taxes and borrowing don't pay for anything.
What does this all mean. There's absolutely nothing to worry about because the UK government can just create as much currency as it needs whenever it needs and can never ever go broke creating its own currency. The British taxpayers won't have to pay any extra whatsoever.
Was my comment accurate or not? Is this a topic for a future podcast?